[nicvdb]

---

2 ♦ multi, 2 ♥ pass or correct.

3♥ not alerted, clearly meant as cue, understood as natural. EW playing first time together.

4♠ down a lot. NS call you for a ruling.

What's your decision?

If asked why North didn't double : "Because I could see that a bidding misunderstanding was born. If I double, they probably play 3NT."
If asked why South bid 4♠: "Clearly North has a weak 2♠, so I have an easy sacrifice, NV against V."

[wank]

no agreement, so no lack of alert, so no problem.

[eagles123]

my ruling is this topic is in the wrong section

[1eyedjack]

Next!

[pran]

 nicvdb, on 2015-December-25, 07:46, said:

---

2 ♦ multi, 2 ♥ pass or correct.

3♥ not alerted, clearly meant as cue, understood as natural. EW playing first time together.

4♠ down a lot. NS call you for a ruling.

What's your decision?

If asked why North didn't double : "Because I could see that a bidding misunderstanding was born. If I double, they probably play 3NT."
If asked why South bid 4♠: "Clearly North has a weak 2♠, so I have an easy sacrifice, NV against V."

The explanation given by North is quite reasonable, but I consider the 4♠ bid by South as "double shot" (or "wild and gambling"):

"If North has spades then all is well, and if North has hearts then I yell for a MI ruling because of lacking alert by East".

This is precisely a self-inflecting damage action Law 12.C.1.b is there to prevent gaining from, and it is particularly applicable here since EW is playing first time together.

[rmnka447]

No adjustment or penalty. The result stands.

E/W had a bidding misunderstanding. Bidding misunderstandings are allowed in bridge without penalty. neither partner did anything that was at odds with their individual understanding of their agreements. So their side is not culpable for the result.

South drew inferences from the opponent's and his partner's bidding which is done at his own peril. His inferences might be logical based on what he thought was going on, but he was mistaken. Sorry, but that's the rub of the green and the result stands.

[barmar]

 eagles123, on 2015-December-25, 07:07, said:

my ruling is this topic is in the wrong section

Not any more.

[barmar]

 eagles123, on 2015-December-25, 07:07, said:

my ruling is this topic is in the wrong section

And now I notice that he also posted in the right section, so the two threads have been merged.

[ahydra]

Is one not meant to alert in the case where you have no agreement but partner's intended meaning may be alertable?

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

 ahydra, on 2015-December-25, 14:11, said:

Is one not meant to alert in the case where you have no agreement but partner's intended meaning may be alertable?

ahydra

This was my thought (and I believe is true in EBUland but not sure about elsewhere), the question here should be "what would south do if told correctly that EW had no agreement about 3♥".

[hrothgar]

As I recall, if the side opening the conventional bid screws things up, we're supposed to hang them for not knowing their agreements.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

More formally, in the absence of contradictory information, I believe that we are supposed to assume misinformation...

[gordontd]

 hrothgar, on 2015-December-25, 18:02, said:

More formally, in the absence of contradictory information, I believe that we are supposed to assume misinformation...

This is true, but from the sound of the original post, the correct information would be "we have no agreement" and I'm not sure that anyone would have done anything differently with that knowledge. Effectively West has fooled everyone with the bizarre 3H bid. I can't imagine why he didn't just bid 2S

[RMB1]

 gordontd, on 2015-December-25, 21:42, said:

This is true, but from the sound of the original post, the correct information would be "we have no agreement" and I'm not sure that anyone would have done anything differently with that knowledge.

But, in practice, they would not know that they had no agreement at the table during the auction.

If I was told [or otherwise became aware] that they had no agreement I would be confident that one of them thought it was natural and one of them thought it was artificial. That would be enough for me to dismiss any thought of bidding [as South].

[Cyberyeti]

 RMB1, on 2015-December-26, 08:22, said:

But, in practice, they would not know that they had no agreement at the table during the auction.

If I was told [or otherwise became aware] that they had no agreement I would be confident that one of them thought it was natural and one of them thought it was artificial. That would be enough for me to dismiss any thought of bidding [as South].

So if the layout actually turned out to be N with ♠AKJxxx, xxx, xxx, x and EW did in fact know what they were doing and had a 5-4 heart fit, would you seek any redress and would you be entitled to any for letting them play 4♥.

S has not protected himself by asking about 4♥ (no alert above 3N hurts here), but I'm not sure I would either, it's not clear if 4♥ is a heart raise, a cue bid or a lot of hearts and not enough points to overcall assuming opener has 6 spades and partner has 4.

[Trinidad]

 pran, on 2015-December-25, 10:51, said:

The explanation given by North is quite reasonable, but I consider the 4♠ bid by South as "double shot" (or "wild and gambling"):

"If North has spades then all is well, and if North has hearts then I yell for a MI ruling because of lacking alert by East".

This is precisely a self-inflecting damage action Law 12.C.1.b is there to prevent gaining from, and it is particularly applicable here since EW is playing first time together.

There is nothing wild or gambling in South's 4♠ bid if he believes that West has hearts and East supported them, In fact, in that case, I would consider a pass wild and gambling, since -under those conditions- the 4♠ bid is obvious. The only argument for not bidding 4♠ is that EW are not yet in 6♥ (where they might well belong).

So, there is definitely no SEWoG here.

So, the question remains whether NS were mseled. That depends on:
- their real agreement (possibly, but not certainly: "no agreement" or "no special agreement, therefore natural")
- the local alerting regulations

Rik

[RMB1]

 Cyberyeti, on 2015-December-26, 10:00, said:

So if the layout actually turned out to be N with ♠AKJxxx, xxx, xxx, x and EW did in fact know what they were doing and had a 5-4 heart fit, would you seek any redress and would you be entitled to any for letting them play 4♥.

If I wanted to play in 4♠ when we had a spade fit, I would play natural weak twos. If I play a multi it is with the expectation of being able to defend 4♥ when they don't have a fit because the opponents have had a misunderstanding, on a regular basis.

[Cyberyeti]

 RMB1, on 2015-December-26, 11:50, said:

If I wanted to play in 4♠ when we had a spade fit, I would play natural weak twos. If I play a multi it is with the expectation of being able to defend 4♥ when they don't have a fit because the opponents have had a misunderstanding, on a regular basis.

So the opps gain massively for NOT being certain about their own system.

[campboy]

 ahydra, on 2015-December-25, 14:11, said:

Is one not meant to alert in the case where you have no agreement but partner's intended meaning may be alertable?

If East suspected (based on his knowledge of partner) that the intended meaning was artificial then perhaps he should have alerted. But he presumably didn't suspect that, nor have any reason to.